David Woollet wrote:
> This is a clear abuse of the DIV element. You are introducing a
> DIV element which doesn't represent a structural element in the document
> (and with the intention that the content be rendered as though arbitrarily
> split into two different divisions).
>
> The Holy Grail of CSS is to eliminate the need to misrepresent the
> structure of the document in order to get a desirable rendering.
>
> Also note that there will be valid cases in which secondDiv is not
> used at all, and things would get interesting if secondDiv preceded
> firstDiv and its size wasn't fully constrained.
>
>
Maybe, instead of an overflow target, one could specify text-holder-groups.
Or maybe, instead of defining groups, where we would have to add empty
holder div's around which you object (still a bit better than changing the
structure of the document and child parent relations for making text flow
around, tho) "absolute positioned" floats defined using the advanced
layout module might help (Where we declare which element will be floated
inside which element, and then position that "absolute positioned float"
using e.g. right: 0; bottom: 0;
This way we'd still have 1 element for our content text.
Emrah B.